Somehow, Critics Don't Think 'Non-Stop' is Terrible, But It's Still Pretty Bad
'Non-Stop' isn't the best film you'll ever see, and, surprisingly, not the worst...
Stripping down Non-Stop into the ingredients that make it gives a good indication as to what you should expect: Liam Neeson. Air Marshal. Crazed terrorist demanding money. 40,000 feet in the air. Gillian Anderson. Bomb. Cryptic text messages.
Liam Neeson doing what he does best 'bemused proffesional'
Sounds bad, no? Well it is, but – according to a bunch of critics – not as bad as you might think. We had this pinned down as a 13% stinker on Rotten Tomatoes, but would appear as though the review-aggregating site has totted the reviews up to the sum of 59%, at the time of writing anyway.
“Non-Stop is a crisp, efficient thriller that benefits greatly from the intangibles Neeson can be counted on to supply,” says Kenneth Turan of The Los Angeles Times. It “doesn't make any sense, but that's expected, uninteresting and incidental to the pleasures of a slow-season Liam Neeson release as diverting as this one,” goes the New York Times’ review, written by Manohla Dargis.
“Until a preposterous ending that tries to turn a popcorn movie profound by making it topical,” says Peter Travers for Rolling Stone, “Non-Stop gets the job done. It's fun to watch audiences jump in their seats and go, ‘Eek!’” And finally, Mike Scott of Times Picayune – why not? – says, “There's nothing strikingly original about Non-Stop, but it does show that Neeson, even when on autopilot, still knows exactly how to hold down an action film.”
If you’re looking for a silly action film this Academy Award weekend, then Non-Stop might just be the ticket you need. It won’t feature at The Oscars, mainly due to its ineligibility, and you can put your entire life on it not winning a single award at all, ever.